And other nonsensical crap from the United Nations... This is the august body that had Uganda on the Human Rights Committee during Idi Amin's reign
of terror and Saddam Hussein's Iraq while they were gassing villages.

I dont think the UN has any grounds to speak on in regards to a subject like this. Period.

My 2nd thought is this. Cops have to get tased when undergoing training. They seem to be just fine.

So, I personally have no issues w/ tasing. Im certainly not going to support citizens who feel they are above the law and can disrespect law
enforcement. And its really easy to avoid confrontations with LEOs. I have manged to do it for my 30+ years.

And im really curious as to what the actual statitics are of deaths by taser. Something I will look into *adding to my list of things to do*

Pretty soon cops will just have to let unruly people go - just because. LOL

Well, this is what happens when you start complaining about the police beating people to much. In the old days there was respect for the cops and
less crime because even if you only gave the cops the middle finger, they would give you a few wacks with his stick. Now, because of all the whiney
babies complaining about cops being strict with punks by giving them a few hits with a stick, they have started using tasers. Now the same softy
crybabies are complaining about tasers.
What do you want the cops to use, harsh language? One of the main reasons crime is out of control is because of the lack of disrespect against cops
which is happening because criminal want-a-be's realize the police cannot do anything without getting sued. Their hands are tied.

Even if we set aside the moral authority (or lack thereof) held by the UN HRC, or whether or not a TASER quite lives up to the term "torture
device", there is a valid point beneath this issue that bears addressing.

Sophisticated non-lethal weapons, though in the big picture they almost certainly are a net positive for society, do have a drawback. They make
violence very easy to accept.

TASERs make violence an impersonal affair. They stack the fight in one person's favor, like any weapon, taking away utilitarian reasons not to resort
to violence in the face of non-violent conflict.

But furthermore, they make violence "not so bad". Most of the time, they present a relatively low risk of fatal injury, and although perhaps not in
practice, in perception they seem "safer" than hitting someone with a baton. This takes away some of the humane reasons not to resort to violence.

They also seem very dignified. The use of a baton is not entirely unlike unarmed violence. It requires physical exertion. It's up close and personal-
you can end up grapling- if it goes badly it can become just as unsophisticated as a bar fight. But a TASER is a very professional feeling weapon. You
stand, you warn them in a clear voice, you push a button, and they are incapacitated in a clean and efficient way. It wouldn't seem as wrong as
hitting someone with a baton or tackling them to the ground.

Even pepper spray is not quite the same as a TASER. Pepper spray requires you to be pretty close, and its an undignified weapon. Often enough the cop
ends up shielding his eyes with one arm, missing a lot, and ultimately still having to tackle the offender.

In so many ways, the TASER makes violence much easier to resort to, and therefore it is a double-edged sword.

It's probably saved the lives of people like me. I'm not very jolly for a fat guy- infact I'm scary. The cop doesn't know I'm harmless, so if he
finds me drunk, he probably should have a weapon handy- but if he makes a mistake I don't want to die for it, so let that weapon be a TASER, for
sure.

But the down side does need to be dealt with. I'm not even going to pretend to have all the answers. I'm sure that somebody, somewhere, has a
whole rolodex full of shrinks and lawyers and retired cops and self-aggrandizing "reverends" who shall remain nameless and that if you called
everyone in that rolodex you'd eventually get a few common answers that have some merit. All I know is that somebody needs to find that dang rolodex
and start saving up their roll-over minutes so they can put this problem to bed.

So, by that ... the UN is directly claiming that the U.S. is torturing its own citizens.

Torture causes terror.

Therefore, the U.S. public servants (oh sorry, police force) is a terrorist organization.

Also, the U.S. gov't supports this group and its use or weapons of terror against the citizens of a nation.

This means, the gov't should arrest and detain the police and itself and ship the whole lot to gitmo under the patriot act, and use water boarding
against all those who use and support the use of the taser weapon.

Above all else, protecting freedom against tyranny should be every citizen's concern ... though reading here lately, it seems most feel the
opposite.

Brainwashing started in the schools ... now we see the results. I will not give up my freedom because some jerk does something wrong ... it is NOT
justice to punish the innocent for the acts of a few misguided.

I just can't believe this came from the U.N. .... where are all the people talking how the U.N. is the front for imposing the NWO? Wouldn't the
taser be a useful tool for such a goal? I guess the answer would be, play the good guy so they willingly accept you, right?

Anyone who willingly accepts the use of taser and pepper spray, should be sprayed themselves ... and also put with the thought of a family member who
may be sensitive (allergies, weak cardio, epilepsy, etc.) being put through that because some rogue officer is having an off day.

Yes, some criminals need to be dealt with, with force. But that seems to not be the case most of the time. I know some officers that agree with me
completely, they think the taser and mace should be banned for it potential for misuse or ability to effect more than the intended target in a severe
manner. They are usually not the rookies, but 20+ year serving veterans.

Oh, and if the cop can't take someone waving a bird without resulting to brutality, then maybe they need some SERIOUS counseling and SHOULD NOT be an
officer in the first place, and with that aggressive disorder, should in NO WAY have a weapon of any kind in their possession. Someone who results to
violence from a non-violent, non-threatening gesture, probably is abusive in many areas of their lives and a social worker should most likely have a
private chat with their spouse and children and the ASPCA check their animals for signs of abuse as well.

Just remember, the cops are there to SERVE AND PROTECT ... not question, beat, assume, profile, harass, etc.

Respect is to be earned, not given because of an outfit. If they do not show respect to those they interact with, why should someone show respect
back?

If an organization demands respect without giving it ... that doesn't sound very good ... and in history, it never was any good.

Control through threat is not what police nor governments should be about in a free country.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Even pepper spray is not quite the same as a TASER. Pepper spray requires you to be pretty close, and its an undignified weapon. Often enough the cop
ends up shielding his eyes with one arm, missing a lot, and ultimately still having to tackle the offender.

What about the PepperBall gun? Aim to the chest and pull the trigger. No need to worry about cardiac arrest.

I'm in favor of nonlethal weapons that are actually nonlethal. As in you could shoot a 80 year old woman who had been smoking and drinking for 25
years w/o her dying. No more of this "nonlethal except for when we kill someone" stuff.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.